IMPLEMENTASI HAK IMUNITAS ADVOKAT YANG DITETAPKAN SEBAGAI TERSANGKA DITINJAU DARI PASAL 16 UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 18 TAHUN 2003 TENTANG ADVOKAT

The law to be effective has a substance structure, law enforcement and legal culture. However, in law enforcement there is often contact between one party and another. So there needs to be a right intended to protect the law enforcement profession so that it can enforce the law in accordance with the law without intervention from any party. Including the advocate profession that is protected by immunity rights in Article 16 of Law Number 18 of 2003 concerning Advocates. But in its application there are often some discrepancies between das solen and das sein. For this problem the researcher conducted a sociological juridical research in the East Java Regional Police with reference to the case of advocates Parjo and Darmo. The results of this study indicate that there are problems in the element of good faith in Article 16 of Law Number 18 of 2003 concerning Advocates who still have abstract explanations so that misinterpretations occur in their application. So the application of the right of advocate immunity in the East Java Regional Police is also inappropriate because with consideration of the immunity rights of advocates Parjo and Darmo there is the determination of the status of early suspects, ignoring the truth of events and gaps. between lawyers and police